Retrieve notes attached to a lead, contact, or company to access interaction history and previous summaries for informed responses.
Busca as notas de um Lead, Contato ou Empresa específico. Útil para o LLM ler o histórico ou resumos anteriores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ID da entidade | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| entity_type | No | Tipo da entidade | leads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries responsibility for conveying behavior. The verb 'Busca' and the phrase 'ler o histórico' imply a read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or that entity_type must be specified to fetch notes for contacts or companies rather than defaulting to leads.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the practical LLM use case, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it retrieves and why an LLM would use it. Minor gaps remain around pagination and the optionality of entity_type, but the schema defaults and clear purpose make the tool sufficiently callable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 60%, covering entity_id, client_slug, and entity_type, while page and limit are left undescribed. The description adds meaningful context by mapping entity types to Lead, Contato, or Empresa, but it does not explain pagination parameters or further clarify required identifiers beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('as notas') targeting a specific Lead, Contato or Empresa, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_note. It also explains the intended use case, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says the tool is useful for the LLM to read history or previous summaries, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but there is no competing read-notes sibling, so the guidance is sufficient without being exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.